BBC Presenter Huw Edwards Suspended

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Cobblers. Nothing illegal

Fan of noncing are you?

17 / 18. Hey as soon as the clock strikes they’re fair game.

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy

In the UK an 18 year old id legally an adult and entitled to make his own choices and decisions.That's the entire situation here.There has to be a cut off point where adulthood begins and ends.
All the furore that has ensued is purely down to a newspaper trying to sell it's product by trying to make salacious innuendo without reference to the truth.

As I said before Maggy, as a teacher.

If the 60yr old head teacher of your school was paying a 6th form girl for naked photos, you’re on board with that? No worries?

You didn’t answer last time, I’ll wait.

[Sephiroth]

Once we know what's what, we can pass judgement.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

Totally agree.

Well there’s no surprise.

Then it turns out (comparatively under the radar) that in fact there wasn't anything wrong and then it also so happens the lad is 18 so perfectly legal.

Well, I think there’s a bit more nuance that has to be applied in these scenarios.

A vulnerable young adult, aged 17, or aged 18, is still a vulnerable young adult. Being over the age of 18 does not mean it is open season to take advantage or exploit that vulnerable person.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well there’s no surprise.



Well, I think there’s a bit more nuance that has to be applied in these scenarios.

A vulnerable young adult, aged 17, or aged 18, is still a vulnerable young adult. Being over the age of 18 does not mean it is open season to take advantage or exploit that vulnerable person.

The Chap took Huw for 35K who exploited who?

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Fan of noncing are you?

17 / 18. Hey as soon as the clock strikes they’re fair game.

Well, legally that is exactly how it works (in terms of pictures).


A person who is 15y 364 days is illegal to have sex but as soon as the clock strikes midnight they are 16 and legal.



A person who is 17y 364 days is illegal to send a picture of themselves naked but again as soon as they turn 18 they can.


I don't see how the legal system can manage this any other way.


There has to be a boundary which is clearly and easily defined and age is the obvious one.


So there are obvious grey areas - the lad whom Philip Schofield knew from a young boy, for example, even if they waited until relevant age limits, it's shady at best - and areas where ones personal moral spectrum mean that something which is legally allowed perhaps isn't felt as the right thing to do...


Or indeed, if there is evidence of grooming a kid under the age limit (for whatever) but doing nothing until they have passed that time.


But this is quite frankly a case where plenty of us (myself included) would see this as morally questionable at best if not wrong (quite why a guy in his 60s would want pictures of a teenage boy even if he is 18) but actually no laws are broken. In these cases it's important to differentiate between what one would personally do and what the law allows one to do (or doesn't allow). For example, some people still consider adultery to be wrong (it's not allowed in the ten commandments) yet legally leaving someone for someone else even after marriage is allowed.

---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:20 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well there’s no surprise.



Well, I think there’s a bit more nuance that has to be applied in these scenarios.

A vulnerable young adult, aged 17, or aged 18, is still a vulnerable young adult. Being over the age of 18 does not mean it is open season to take advantage or exploit that vulnerable person.

Legally speaking - no


Morally speaking - down to personal opinion

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nffc

Morally speaking - down to personal opinion

A great comfort to all the parents out there.

Enjoy Cambodia and Thailand, for some reason I just get the feeling you holiday there.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

A great comfort to all the parents out there.

Enjoy Cambodia and Thailand, for some reason I just get the feeling you holiday there.

You really are a horrible person

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

A great comfort to all the parents out there.

Enjoy Cambodia and Thailand, for some reason I just get the feeling you holiday there.

Point out where it's incorrect?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

You really are a horrible person

I’m willing to accept that, if you can expand upon where my disgust on wealthy famous powerful 60yr old males soliciting photographs from 18yr olds makes me horrible.

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

Point out where it's incorrect?

What? I think I’ve made it perfectly clear that it’s incorrect. You seem to be on the “it’s legal, so have at it” side of things. So morally, I would say the Hugh Edwards affair is very much “incorrect”

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m willing to accept that, if you can expand upon where my disgust on wealthy famous powerful 60yr old males soliciting photographs from 18yr olds makes me horrible.

---------- Post added at 22:45 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------



What? I think I’ve made it perfectly clear that it’s incorrect. You seem to be on the “it’s legal, so have at it” side of things. So morally, I would say the Hugh Edwards affair is very much “incorrect”

Not at all.


I'm on the "the law says it's OK, so it's down to us as individuals to decide whether we also think it's OK" side of things.

[Sephiroth]

Look people: One side is saying it's legal what Edwards has been up to.

The other side (including me) is saying that the age gap makes it immoral.

Both sides are back-to-back and talking about different things. Pierre is right: If that were your 18 year old child, would you (the people areguing about legality) be OK with that?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m willing to accept that, if you can expand upon where my disgust on wealthy famous powerful 60yr old males soliciting photographs from 18yr olds makes me horrible.

I more refer to you throwing around cloaked paedophile accusations

---------- Post added at 23:15 ---------- Previous post was at 23:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Look people: One side is saying it's legal what Edwards has been up to.

The other side (including me) is saying that the age gap makes it immoral.

Both sides are back-to-back and talking about different things. Pierre is right: If that were your 18 year old child, would you (the people areguing about legality) be OK with that?

I would be more concerned about the drug problem

I think it is immoral. I think a lot of things are immoral. I think judging people harshly without real evidence is immoral too

Huw clearly has issues but then so do a lot of people.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Look people: One side is saying it's legal what Edwards has been up to.

The other side (including me) is saying that the age gap makes it immoral.

Both sides are back-to-back and talking about different things. Pierre is right: If that were your 18 year old child, would you (the people areguing about legality) be OK with that?

The "if it were your child" argument doesn't wash though, as with many things that may or may not happen to your children you would probably have a different viewpoint than if it had happened to somebody else. The law is quite clear and unambigous, as long as two consenting adults are involved. Personal morals don't come in to it, just look at what this government have got away with over the years.

[Sephiroth]

you see how the "legalists" pivot away from the moral question.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

you see how the "legalists" pivot away from the moral question.

Well being immoral in most instances is not illegal. Sex outside marriage, adultery, viewing porn. I am sure a good portion on this forum have done at least one of those